There is no abandoning the future and infinity of possibilities within law. How far ahead can you think in the future? You can’t dictate what is imagination and what is not if you do not think in the future, which is “imagination” it’s an estimation of most probable effects/causes.

I can be whatever I want, what if I do all of them? I pick psychology because in order to do what we want externally, people need to understand themselves internally. It is the best or most effective to be spread and taught, how to use and deal with mind. So we can be an organized and functioning society and species, aimed at the future, a higher aim than what is aimed for now, currently, unless you think right now is sufficient?

No one said there wasn’t a reason but I get to pick that reason or it’s pursuit, in any given present moment, I could also experience such non directly. The subconscious may actively pick for the (conscious) identity. I determine the future by the present identity not being confined solely to the past in certain aspects/facets.

I can’t estimate what an Ancient Greek would be thinking but Star Trek certainly may have been and I’ll take it as a sign that yes, we can estimate the future. So tell me, what is imagination? Something you don’t understand? I never said some cannot be exaggeration but there is still truth to be taken in/from exaggeration. Which is what we do and have constantly been doing, if not, then why aren’t we still Ancient Greeks right now? Where did the internet and social apps come from?

Self projection? That’s funny, we’re all slaves but the one who understands how to control his environment and “confinement” in being a slave to better suit the slaves needs and wants, then is the slave still a slave?

Do you enjoy being a slave? If so then how are you a slave? Because you can’t go faster than speed light? Because you can’t float off the ground without some form of an invention to make such a reality? Because you can’t shoot lightning out of your fingers? Again without some form of invention.

There is no limit of possibilities for what we can do within the laws themselves, it’s an expansion and we can’t say these laws will always apply everywhere either.

Separate the truth from the noise, same concept with imagination, there are always elements of truth hidden in imagery. This is a fact.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

You're really going to argue that Tu Quoque doesn't have a convergence point, that doesn't make it a false equivalency in the special case of stating that identity is false (with the exception that it's utile)?

It's ultimately utile, yet ultimately false.

Which is it?

It's plainly obvious that you're trying to use the same terminology that I'm using to nullify your points "back at me", but just the same as I've seen before with another Free Will advocate who also knew nothing about the subject, you're using it incorrectly.

You're also making up this weird terminology like "convergence point" that really says nothing without proper explanation - but I daren't ask you for one, because every explanation you make seems to be in terms of evermore unclear language. Your points rarely make enough sense, it's really frustrating when all I'm trying to do is understand what you're saying but you're making it as hard as possible.

Or rather you're assuming that because you think it makes sense to you, other people should know what you mean. We don't - and I say "we" because I see others struggling all the time too.

There are tons of useful lies, not just identity. Language itself is one - a signifier isn't the signified, and yet it's the only way we know to communicate about the world. Humans tell each other fictional stories in order to create meaning, but the value taken from them doesn't make them any less fictional.There's this assumption I see everywhere that useful means true. No it very much does not lol. And there you go trying to invalidly throw back the contradiction I validly identified in your points... Yes identity is ultimately utile and ultimately false.

I also made a post distinguishing between two common interpretations of truth - one as objective, the other as subjective i.e. what is useful. Some people who fall in the latter category literally seem to treat the useful as truth, and disregard the actual truth as an inconvenience. The "wishful thinkers" of the world who are out to tip power in their favour, lie, cheat and steal whenever they can justify it and get away with it to attain an unfair advantage to the cost of everyone - but to others more than them. These types are the very ones you wish to denounce with your "consent" tautology, yet on this subject here you are willing to conflate use with truth?

A lot of the problems people here are having with you are solely down to your attitude - you dictate, you don't ask questions. You show zero humility or self-critical sense checking. Come down a few pegs to where you really are and work your way back up legitimately. Make sure you make sense before insisting you do.

That debate about the tautology of consent was resolved when I used the truth tables to prove that when a statement acts upon itself it changes both context and meaning, which makes it non tautological.

You bury your head in scholastics so far, like a robot, that you are shocked by any form of contradiction of them.

If someone does other than what they say, and you point it out, it is a logical fallacy.

Definitional.

So if someone says that they don't exist (except for utility (which isn't ultimately true (which means it isn't true))), then it's a logical fallacy to point out that they do exist.

I'm not being weird here like you claim. I'm using your own definitions to show that in the case of denying identity that this fallacy hits a convergence point where it is both a fallacy and a contradiction at the same time.

I'm one of two people in tens of thousands of years of human history to find a unique way to order the rational numbers. You won't find my technique or proof on Wikipedia, but I'll post it for you if you ask.

That's argument from authority for being a logically sound person. Is that a logical fallacy as well?

You keep digging at me as if I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about in your rarified air of logic.

If someone does other than what they say, and you point it out, it is a logical fallacy.

Definitional.

So if someone says that they don't exist (except for utility (which isn't ultimately true (which means it isn't true))), then it's a logical fallacy to point out that they do exist.

I'm not being weird here like you claim. I'm using your own definitions to show that in the case of denying identity that this fallacy hits a convergence point where it is both a fallacy and a contradiction at the same time.

Committing the Tu Quoque fallacy is to use someone's actions as grounds to dismiss their words.

It is a fallacy because an argument can be perfectly true, even if the person making the argument isn't abiding by it in their life. The argument might even be false, and potentially this is why the proponent acts differently to their words, but to assume this, or to use it as the reason for the argument's falsity - this is fallacious, logically. The reason the argument might be false is not because of actions, it can only be because of any logical contradictions or logical fallacies that the proponent used. An opponent using the Tu Quoque in this situation just makes them equally guilty of logical error in the form of their fallacy and thus disproves nothing, even though in this case the argument might be disprovable by other means.

I can't tell if you understand this or not because again your wording is so unclear.

Are you suggesting that it's a contradiction to use the fallacy or that the fallacy itself is a contradiction? It sounds like probably you mean the latter, in which case no, it's not a contradiction to act differently to how you say - because "acting on what you say" and "saying what you say" are not the same thing. That's why it's a fallacy to imply it is a contradiction. So it's necessarily not a fallacy and a contradiction at the same time... - the literal opposite of what you're trying to pull.

It just sounds to someone like me, who knows what things mean, as though you're just committing the fallacy over and over and over because you don't understand it and just think you do...They aren't "my" definitions that I'm using either - they're "the" definitions and I'm using them as intended in order to aid in clarity. If you want to use standard terminology differently - say so, and preferably why, but if you don't understand what standard terminology means, don't use it!

I don't want to believe you're dim, but the only alternative I have is to believe you're an extraordinarily bad explainer, and unfortunately this is usually a reflection of being an extraordinarily bad thinker - but like I said, I'm doing my best to not assume.What I do know is that you're a hysteric, reactionary and impulsive - responding to your posts is like fighting the mythological hydra: every time I finish a response to a thread, two more have taken its place - often straight after one another, emotionally charged and just an addendum to your previous post.As for me, I put a great deal of time and thought into my posts, trying my best to find any reason why each thing I'm saying might be wrong, and if I find a thought of mine to be incomplete I make sure it is complete by the time I resume writing. I re-read and correct things I say several times, making sure I'm as clear as I can be and that I've covered everything. But trying to wade through your words and decipher any clear meaning there may or may not be - this just adds to the chore. And there you are, on this forum 24/7 writing post after post - in these respects we are opposites. I've been a member of this forum just less than twice as long as you, and you've written more than twice as many posts as me - what does that say about our respective attention to detail and care?

However, with my previous post and this one I've decided to post to one of your posts at a time, because getting through a response to you, only to find you've said more than needs correcting is just demoralising. I can already see there's more to deal with since I started writing this post... <sigh>

What I'm clearly stating, and have been for many posts now, is that if someone says the opposite of what they do, the argument states that what they state may still be correct, HOWEVER!!! If they state that they don't exist, the fallacy falls apart at a zero point convergence for the fallacy itself, which means that the fallacy does not hold for all situations. I'm not saying it's not a fallacy, I'm stating that it needs to take into account the logical refutations of it (which you are committing) in order to be understood at a deeper level as not a blanket law of non contradiction.

Artimas wrote:There is no abandoning the future and infinity of possibilities within law. How far ahead can you think in the future? You can’t dictate what is imagination and what is not if you do not think in the future, which is “imagination” it’s an estimation of most probable effects/causes.

So are you trying to posit an infinity that stretches out in the temporal dimension? Even given the finite human mind, limited capacity for memory and exposure to experience, and the non-zero time that it takes for thoughts to cross the mind etc., given enough time, these things will tend towards an infinity?

Even in the temporal dimension, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy will increase to the point where life cannot exist. Before then, of course, our sun will die. Even time is finite, moreso for us as humans. All metrics you can think of, along which to "claim" an infinity, are finite. Infinity is something you can try and will fail to imagine no matter who you are.

I'm not sure if you're appealing to the conception of future as "in the present imagination" like I prefer to do. If so, the finite human mind etc. as I listed above makes the finite nature even more clear. Do you really think you could think an infinity of thoughts? If you do, then obviously you don't understand infinity. This is even clearer if, as I mentioned, you don't conflate possibility with actuality. In actuality, you won't think an infinity of thoughts. So even if there were an infinity of possible thoughts, nobody will ever think them "all". This isn't because I told them they couldn't, it's because of reality. And reality, as I explained above, with its finitude in all respects doesn't even allow an infinity of possible thoughts - regardless of whether you or I think differently.

Let's even grant, for the sake of argument, that all possibilities could be chosen even if you don't choose them - how do you test that? Do we just believe you? Knowledge requires testing, repetition, trying to disprove it, peer review, careful controls and the avoidance of determining Questionable Cause. If other people have chosen them, it proves they were possibilities for them - not for you. They don't defy the laws of physics? But neither does your decision making - each electromagnetic interaction between your neurons conforms to the electromagnetic force acting on the arrangement that just so happens to be "you right now" - or at any time, as part of the vast web of causation that is reality, which isn't limited to just "you" - it extends beyond to the wider world with forces permeating throughout.

You do understand this, right? "You" isn't a closed system, and the way you interact with the world, choices and imagination alike is all a result of the electromagnetic force, with a little bit of gravity, and the strong + weak nuclear forces acting uniformly regardless of you or not, with no differentiation between your body and your brain - complex or simple, the interactions of neurons that map your thoughts and choices are just doing what electricity and magnets do. Is it a lack of scientific appreciation that prevents you from letting go of the "woo-woo" of Free Will? I'm trying to find exactly what's in your way - ironically what's limiting you.

Artimas wrote:I can be whatever I want, what if I do all of them?

And yet you didn't. There was a reason that determined this, which you gave me yourself. But you still want to conflate possibility of "could have been" with actually "didn't".

Even if you did all of them, there would have been a reason that determined it. None of this free open world of possibilities is free from reasons determining choices. Understanding yourself internally is gonna happen if there's a reason, and it won't happen if there's reason preventing it. Aiming high will either be determined or it will be determined that you think right now is sufficient - Determinism covers both.

What is this misunderstanding you have that makes you think Determinism only causes one to think the "right now is sufficient"? It determines aiming at the future, organising and functioning society and species just the same. Again, it sounds like you don't quite understand what Determinism is. It covers the conscious just as much as the subconscious.

Artimas wrote:No one said there wasn’t a reason but I get to pick that reason or it’s pursuit, in any given present moment, I could also experience such non directly. The subconscious may actively pick for the (conscious) identity. I determine the future by the present identity not being confined solely to the past in certain aspects/facets.

"You" getting to pick the reason or its pursuit likewise happens for a reason, or not. Reasons precede reasons precede reasons - all the way back to before you were born, and back a lot more than that. They continue though the present and will continue into the future.

Artimas wrote:I can’t estimate what an Ancient Greek would be thinking but Star Trek certainly may have been and I’ll take it as a sign that yes, we can estimate the future. So tell me, what is imagination? Something you don’t understand? I never said some cannot be exaggeration but there is still truth to be taken in/from exaggeration. Which is what we do and have constantly been doing, if not, then why aren’t we still Ancient Greeks right now? Where did the internet and social apps come from?

Of course we can estimate the future, if so determined to do so. Predictions are notoriously bad if you look at all the Sci-Fi about times that we've now reached, but that doesn't stop us trying to envisage them. Determinism causes you to try or not, and Determinism causes you do it well or badly, and Determinism causes it to turn out how it really does. Of course I understand imagination - I am a particularly creative person, imagining all sorts, from original melodies and harmonies that I then work out and play/record - to a game that I imagined and am currently programming slowly but quite successfully, with many other things besides. And always there was a reason for me imagining one thing or another that was determined by prior reasons etc. I am imagining what it is that I think you think, I am imagining what it is that is getting in the way of you understanding and appreciating the scope of Determinism... imagination is how people progress - of course! And it's all determined that reasons will cause one to imagine successfully or otherwise, it's determined that you will either understand my points or not at any given time, it's determined that I already understand everything you're saying, and it was determined that someone thought up the internet, and determined how and when they brought it to life. Not out of "fate", there was just reasons why someone imagined it when they did, and reasons that enabled them to bring it to life.

Artimas wrote:Self projection? That’s funny, we’re all slaves but the one who understands how to control his environment and “confinement” in being a slave to better suit the slaves needs and wants, then is the slave still a slave?

Do you enjoy being a slave? If so then how are you a slave? Because you can’t go faster than speed light? Because you can’t float off the ground without some form of an invention to make such a reality? Because you can’t shoot lightning out of your fingers? Again without some form of invention.

What I enjoy doesn't matter, I'm not taking my own biases or wishes into account when I evaluate how the world is independently of these things. The cosmic speed limit, at which light travels, limits me just like all the other limits of nature. The most prevalent one, as I mentioned, is the electromagnetic force. I don't think you quite understand its extent. Provided the strong and weak nuclear forces which keep atoms together at all, which has no immediate affect on our lives, and with gravity having some effect but not a huge amount, the electromagnetic force literally governs how all atoms will interact with each other - neurons included. If they could act in any other way perhaps they would, but they can't - the neurons will only fire if the electromagnetic force is acting on them in the way it has to, and original thoughts, or any thoughts will only be had if that happens.

There's still some weird things you keep coming out with that make me think you still don't quite understand what Determinism is. I hope I'm clearing them up, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere - you keep talking about being restricted in imagination by Determinism when this is not the case at all - it's Determinism that will just as much cause you to not be restricted in imagination. To a point, obviously... I already explained finitude in all metrics. That's not to say imagination can't be absolutely vast, it's just that the Deterministic mechanism will cause it to be, if it is.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Determinism falls apart easily with a single question:

Determined by who?

The 4 fundamental forces: The strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force and gravity.

What is this fixation that everyone has about "other people" determining what you do like some kind of master/slave social interaction? That's not what Determinism is.

Determinism is ubiquitous natural law acting the only way it does on whatever arrangement of things that exist at any given time, across time.

Indirectly it will determine the relationships between people, seeing as it directly determines the firing of neurons to create thought, attitude and behaviour, all the way up in terms of complexity to these relationships.

But it's like people here think Determinism is a synonym with obedience...

You don't choose whether or not to obey the 4 fundamental forces, you can't freely will your way out of that one however much you try, however free your thinking from social convention and common or traditional thinking, however vast and creative your imagination. It was, is and will be Determinism that caused these traits to become as they are and function as they do, or otherwise, in the first place!

It's when the argument is impossible to prove the thesis it's arguing against, wrong. This doesn't mean the argument is not wrong! Only that the argument against, as form, cannot prove the thesis wrong.

I'm strongly suspecting at this point that the Free Will advocates here are simply suffering from an insufficient education (whether from school or autodidactic - so no excuses concerning indoctrination, please).

Ecmandu wrote:What I'm clearly stating, and have been for many posts now, is that if someone says the opposite of what they do, the argument states that what they state may still be correct, HOWEVER!!! If they state that they don't exist, the fallacy falls apart at a zero point convergence for the fallacy itself, which means that the fallacy does not hold for all situations. I'm not saying it's not a fallacy, I'm stating that it needs to take into account the logical refutations of it (which you are committing) in order to be understood at a deeper level as not a blanket law of non contradiction.

Let's work with an operative definition of fallacy here.

It's when the argument is impossible to prove the thesis it's arguing against, wrong. This doesn't mean the argument is not wrong! Only that the argument against, as form, cannot prove the thesis wrong.

So, for example, an ad hom, cannot possibly prove any thesis wrong.

Are you saying that a logical fallacy might be applicable to an argument, but the conclusion of the argument might still be correct?

This is obviously true (though claiming clarity doesn't make it so - I'm still not certain if this is what you mean).

But if the conclusion of an argument is true, but it's argued fallaciously, then the argument still fails and needs revision and correction!

That's all I've been asking of you: revise and correct. Stop claiming proof when it's fallacious. Admit when a premise is unsound. Be willing to explore avenues that might weaken your conclusion or even make it wrong outright.

But it's never been clear whether or not any of your conclusions are correct because your argumentation itself is so bad.

I'm strongly suspecting at this point that the Free Will advocates here are simply suffering from an insufficient education (whether from school or autodidactic - so no excuses concerning indoctrination, please).

Ecmandu wrote:What I'm clearly stating, and have been for many posts now, is that if someone says the opposite of what they do, the argument states that what they state may still be correct, HOWEVER!!! If they state that they don't exist, the fallacy falls apart at a zero point convergence for the fallacy itself, which means that the fallacy does not hold for all situations. I'm not saying it's not a fallacy, I'm stating that it needs to take into account the logical refutations of it (which you are committing) in order to be understood at a deeper level as not a blanket law of non contradiction.

Let's work with an operative definition of fallacy here.

It's when the argument is impossible to prove the thesis it's arguing against, wrong. This doesn't mean the argument is not wrong! Only that the argument against, as form, cannot prove the thesis wrong.

So, for example, an ad hom, cannot possibly prove any thesis wrong.

Are you saying that a logical fallacy might be applicable to an argument, but the conclusion of the argument might still be correct?

This is obviously true (though claiming clarity doesn't make it so - I'm still not certain if this is what you mean).

But if the conclusion of an argument is true, but it's argued fallaciously, then the argument still fails and needs revision and correction!

That's all I've been asking of you: revise and correct. Stop claiming proof when it's fallacious. Admit when a premise is unsound. Be willing to explore avenues that might weaken your conclusion or even make it wrong outright.

But it's never been clear whether or not any of your conclusions are correct because your argumentation itself is so bad.

The question I've submitted to you, given this definition of logical fallacy, is if you really think that Tu Qouque is really applicable to people who say identity doesn't exist (except for utility - which is being claimed as not the ultimate truth, therefor untrue)

I'm one of two people in tens of thousands of years of human history to find a unique way to order the rational numbers. You won't find my technique or proof on Wikipedia, but I'll post it for you if you ask.

That's argument from authority for being a logically sound person. Is that a logical fallacy as well?

You keep digging at me as if I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about in your rarified air of logic.

You're wrong.

It would be an ad hominem fallacy to claim you are right because of some unrelated achievement, you are right!!! HALLELUJAH.

Let this mark the first time you've correctly applied a logical fallacy so we can finally agree on something!

I don't know if I should ask you to post this "technique" because of your history with "proofs" that I've seen so far... I can have a look at it if you want feedback - I will be honest if I think it's good/bad/flawed/whatever - so I'll leave it to you whether you want to share it. But for now let me just ask: what is the point of finding a unique way to order rational numbers? Does it help with anything?

Ecmandu wrote:The question I've submitted to you, given this definition of logical fallacy, is if you really think that Tu Qouque is really applicable to people who say identity doesn't exist (except for utility - which is being claimed as not the ultimate truth, therefor untrue)

Given "the" definition of logical fallacy - a correction for you there.

"The Tu Quoque is applicable to people who say identity doesn't exist?" No...... The Tu quoque is applicable to those who oppose people saying identity doesn't exist. When I propose that identity doesn't exist in truth, only in utility, and continue to use it, YOU saying my argument is invalid, because I say differently to how I do, is committing the Tu Quoque.

You keep phrasing it like *I* am committing the tu quoque fallacy by saying identity doesn't exist. It's YOU who commits it if you say my hypocrisy makes my argument invalid. If you do so, then the tu quoque is really NOT applicable to people who say identity doesn't exist (except for utility) without being logically fallacious.

Really not convinced you understand the fallacy yet - things you keep saying sound like you've got it exactly backwards, but let me know if it's just bad explanation on your part and if you do really understand it as I've just explained and keep explaining it.

I'm one of two people in tens of thousands of years of human history to find a unique way to order the rational numbers. You won't find my technique or proof on Wikipedia, but I'll post it for you if you ask.

That's argument from authority for being a logically sound person. Is that a logical fallacy as well?

You keep digging at me as if I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about in your rarified air of logic.

You're wrong.

It would be an ad hominem fallacy to claim you are right because of some unrelated achievement, you are right!!! HALLELUJAH.

Let this mark the first time you've correctly applied a logical fallacy so we can finally agree on something!

I don't know if I should ask you to post this "technique" because of your history with "proofs" that I've seen so far... I can have a look at it if you want feedback - I will be honest if I think it's good/bad/flawed/whatever - so I'll leave it to you whether you want to share it. But for now let me just ask: what is the point of finding a unique way to order rational numbers? Does it help with anything?

Ecmandu wrote:The question I've submitted to you, given this definition of logical fallacy, is if you really think that Tu Qouque is really applicable to people who say identity doesn't exist (except for utility - which is being claimed as not the ultimate truth, therefor untrue)

Given "the" definition of logical fallacy - a correction for you there.

"The Tu Quoque is applicable to people who say identity doesn't exist?" No...... The Tu quoque is applicable to those who oppose people saying identity doesn't exist. When I propose that identity doesn't exist in truth, only in utility, and continue to use it, YOU saying my argument is invalid, because I say differently to how I do, is committing the Tu Quoque.

You keep phrasing it like *I* am committing the tu quoque fallacy by saying identity doesn't exist. It's YOU who commits it if you say my hypocrisy makes my argument invalid. If you do so, then the tu quoque is really NOT applicable to people who say identity doesn't exist (except for utility) without being logically fallacious.

Really not convinced you understand the fallacy yet - things you keep saying sound like you've got it exactly backwards, but let me know if it's just bad explanation on your part and if you do really understand it as I've just explained and keep explaining it.

You're stating that identity doesn't exist, and that this is the ultimate truth, yet, you respond to my posts.

You are not acting as you state.

It however, is self evident not only that you exist, but you act as you exist.

My Tu Quoque is that you are full of it, and instead of being a logical fallacy, it's actually a proof that you are wrong.

If you read my above definition of fallacy, then you'd understand that this is not a logical fallacy in this case, and perhaps, if you read my definition, not a logical fallacy at all.

Artimas wrote:There is no abandoning the future and infinity of possibilities within law. How far ahead can you think in the future? You can’t dictate what is imagination and what is not if you do not think in the future, which is “imagination” it’s an estimation of most probable effects/causes.

So are you trying to posit an infinity that stretches out in the temporal dimension? Even given the finite human mind, limited capacity for memory and exposure to experience, and the non-zero time that it takes for thoughts to cross the mind etc., given enough time, these things will tend towards an infinity?

Even in the temporal dimension, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy will increase to the point where life cannot exist. Before then, of course, our sun will die. Even time is finite, moreso for us as humans. All metrics you can think of, along which to "claim" an infinity, are finite. Infinity is something you can try and will fail to imagine no matter who you are.

I'm not sure if you're appealing to the conception of future as "in the present imagination" like I prefer to do. If so, the finite human mind etc. as I listed above makes the finite nature even more clear. Do you really think you could think an infinity of thoughts? If you do, then obviously you don't understand infinity. This is even clearer if, as I mentioned, you don't conflate possibility with actuality. In actuality, you won't think an infinity of thoughts. So even if there were an infinity of possible thoughts, nobody will ever think them "all". This isn't because I told them they couldn't, it's because of reality. And reality, as I explained above, with its finitude in all respects doesn't even allow an infinity of possible thoughts - regardless of whether you or I think differently.

Let's even grant, for the sake of argument, that all possibilities could be chosen even if you don't choose them - how do you test that? Do we just believe you? Knowledge requires testing, repetition, trying to disprove it, peer review, careful controls and the avoidance of determining Questionable Cause. If other people have chosen them, it proves they were possibilities for them - not for you. They don't defy the laws of physics? But neither does your decision making - each electromagnetic interaction between your neurons conforms to the electromagnetic force acting on the arrangement that just so happens to be "you right now" - or at any time, as part of the vast web of causation that is reality, which isn't limited to just "you" - it extends beyond to the wider world with forces permeating throughout.

You do understand this, right? "You" isn't a closed system, and the way you interact with the world, choices and imagination alike is all a result of the electromagnetic force, with a little bit of gravity, and the strong + weak nuclear forces acting uniformly regardless of you or not, with no differentiation between your body and your brain - complex or simple, the interactions of neurons that map your thoughts and choices are just doing what electricity and magnets do. Is it a lack of scientific appreciation that prevents you from letting go of the "woo-woo" of Free Will? I'm trying to find exactly what's in your way - ironically what's limiting you.

Artimas wrote:I can be whatever I want, what if I do all of them?

And yet you didn't. There was a reason that determined this, which you gave me yourself. But you still want to conflate possibility of "could have been" with actually "didn't".

Even if you did all of them, there would have been a reason that determined it. None of this free open world of possibilities is free from reasons determining choices. Understanding yourself internally is gonna happen if there's a reason, and it won't happen if there's reason preventing it. Aiming high will either be determined or it will be determined that you think right now is sufficient - Determinism covers both.

What is this misunderstanding you have that makes you think Determinism only causes one to think the "right now is sufficient"? It determines aiming at the future, organising and functioning society and species just the same. Again, it sounds like you don't quite understand what Determinism is. It covers the conscious just as much as the subconscious.

Artimas wrote:No one said there wasn’t a reason but I get to pick that reason or it’s pursuit, in any given present moment, I could also experience such non directly. The subconscious may actively pick for the (conscious) identity. I determine the future by the present identity not being confined solely to the past in certain aspects/facets.

"You" getting to pick the reason or its pursuit likewise happens for a reason, or not. Reasons precede reasons precede reasons - all the way back to before you were born, and back a lot more than that. They continue though the present and will continue into the future.

Artimas wrote:I can’t estimate what an Ancient Greek would be thinking but Star Trek certainly may have been and I’ll take it as a sign that yes, we can estimate the future. So tell me, what is imagination? Something you don’t understand? I never said some cannot be exaggeration but there is still truth to be taken in/from exaggeration. Which is what we do and have constantly been doing, if not, then why aren’t we still Ancient Greeks right now? Where did the internet and social apps come from?

Of course we can estimate the future, if so determined to do so. Predictions are notoriously bad if you look at all the Sci-Fi about times that we've now reached, but that doesn't stop us trying to envisage them. Determinism causes you to try or not, and Determinism causes you do it well or badly, and Determinism causes it to turn out how it really does. Of course I understand imagination - I am a particularly creative person, imagining all sorts, from original melodies and harmonies that I then work out and play/record - to a game that I imagined and am currently programming slowly but quite successfully, with many other things besides. And always there was a reason for me imagining one thing or another that was determined by prior reasons etc. I am imagining what it is that I think you think, I am imagining what it is that is getting in the way of you understanding and appreciating the scope of Determinism... imagination is how people progress - of course! And it's all determined that reasons will cause one to imagine successfully or otherwise, it's determined that you will either understand my points or not at any given time, it's determined that I already understand everything you're saying, and it was determined that someone thought up the internet, and determined how and when they brought it to life. Not out of "fate", there was just reasons why someone imagined it when they did, and reasons that enabled them to bring it to life.

Artimas wrote:Self projection? That’s funny, we’re all slaves but the one who understands how to control his environment and “confinement” in being a slave to better suit the slaves needs and wants, then is the slave still a slave?

Do you enjoy being a slave? If so then how are you a slave? Because you can’t go faster than speed light? Because you can’t float off the ground without some form of an invention to make such a reality? Because you can’t shoot lightning out of your fingers? Again without some form of invention.

What I enjoy doesn't matter, I'm not taking my own biases or wishes into account when I evaluate how the world is independently of these things. The cosmic speed limit, at which light travels, limits me just like all the other limits of nature. The most prevalent one, as I mentioned, is the electromagnetic force. I don't think you quite understand its extent. Provided the strong and weak nuclear forces which keep atoms together at all, which has no immediate affect on our lives, and with gravity having some effect but not a huge amount, the electromagnetic force literally governs how all atoms will interact with each other - neurons included. If they could act in any other way perhaps they would, but they can't - the neurons will only fire if the electromagnetic force is acting on them in the way it has to, and original thoughts, or any thoughts will only be had if that happens.

There's still some weird things you keep coming out with that make me think you still don't quite understand what Determinism is. I hope I'm clearing them up, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere - you keep talking about being restricted in imagination by Determinism when this is not the case at all - it's Determinism that will just as much cause you to not be restricted in imagination. To a point, obviously... I already explained finitude in all metrics. That's not to say imagination can't be absolutely vast, it's just that the Deterministic mechanism will cause it to be, if it is.

There is no temporal dimension or time to the unconscious/subconscious aspects of reality and the mind. It’s why we need an alarm clock to wake us up and why dogs and animals haven’t invented clocks. It is the separation of us and them, which the differentiation is consciousness. We have a subconscious/unconscious aspect to our mind that we may explore. Consciousness is finite, which is why you must hold the right pieces, to glimpse temporarily, more than what you can hold from the subconscious. The unconscious/subconscious aspect It is cause and effect in an inevitable form, non observable because there is no observer that may understand fully.

Memory capacity and other functions of brain as the receiver of and with consciousness, with evolution, will expand I believe, it already has been, different people have different forms of what would appear ‘better’ memory, short or long, photographic or not, based around different perceptions, our uniqueness is beautiful, a gift.

Yes all will revert back to death and nothingness, to start over again. It will start over, there is no end. Without life it is inevitable because there is no time to it, the unconscious/subconscious, it has all of time to restart and we will be back like we always are, perhaps with different form and different minds.

The present imagination is dependent upon what you understand. The more you understand the more possibilities you may imagine that are plausible, it’s a matter of investing in all of science as a whole and philosophy. It’s not about thinking an infinity of thoughts, it’s about seeing an image that -is- an infinity of thoughts to be understood but the quest is forever, that’s why we need everyone to get that image, to invest time in understanding themselves. It appears as forever because our resources philosophically in humanity are limited due to people being confined to their own egos and traps of the mind that promote self ignorance. It’s a collective effort silhouette, you must look at it not from your identity alone but for all of mankind and life, we recycle, into new form, unconscious or not, nothing is left behind. The interior of the mind has the imagery to paint that infinity because the mind came from this same infinity and is attached to it. Don’t you see that? The unconscious and subconscious mind is a result of what could not be understood, which is what we are attached to, electromagnetic or not that is the soul. The energy that is not our own. We must go as far as we can into infinity, even if it never ends. Unless you think we should cease in our evolution and exterminate ourselves to extinction?

We don’t have to test them silhouette, we already see them all the time on tv.. people whom we or others point our fingers at and blame because they chose to be successful in whatever they chose to pursue. The mass populace paints successful people as bad because of ego, insecurities and jealousy. You know this is true, the reason why is because that celebrities will is higher than the one who is hating them and it is known. That’s why they are celebrities, it’s the basic us and them scenario. I understand the electromagnetic spectrum and imagery. So it must have put me here to talk to you about this, which both of us have the intent in freeing each other’s mind of what we think is a trap but perhaps it is just semantics we discuss over and not a disarrangement of truth. That energy is not our own, the only thing that is ours is our identity which is the will. That is ours, what you do with that will is up to you, not forced to live miserable forever.. we have a choice to understand balance and appreciate what everything is. Life is the miracle compared to an infinity of chaotic primordial evolution or nothingness.

Planets and astrology play a role in this. Another thing deemed superstitious because of religious elements and semantics basically.. alignment of bigger body forces plays a role in our being. The freedom comes after you have accepted that you aren’t free, the consent is the choice to live.. this was accepted a long time ago, which has given me a long time to find what is possible and I am trying to explain that those possibilitiesIn actuality, are endless.. if we pursue wisdom and making the proper choices and can adapt/self preserve to higher levels through those choices.

There is no conflation of what is possible and actuality if based upon understandings, I really would hate to live my life proving something to you when countless people already prove it by their status of being successful, it isn’t a conflation because I still can choose, there is no end of possibility and value attribution until I cease to exist in a given present moment or some big altercation changes my being physically, which could shift possibilities if I let it. Yes, my own reason determines this, because I have made a choice in what I believe to be more important for myself and humanity as a whole.

Yes a reason decided off of individual value attribution. No one denies reason, I only state that we as the identity, get to pick such and that is our freedom to do such, the only thing we truly have is our heart and our will, can’t let either become corrupt and I know you know this, that’s what brought us here, to philosophy. Understanding self is about acceptance and one has to choose that for themself, it is their own reasoning and attribution of value to those reasons.

I think it’s all just a discussion of semantics to be honest, we argue the nearly the same things ultimately. The acceptance of self and what is, is the freedom one gets.. it’s a liberating thing, to accept something or someone for what they are, because there is no attachment, there doesn’t have to be. I don’t know why you don’t like the term free when we aren’t exactly confined either, if such is accepted.

Not if there is no attachment to those reasons previously. Only scenario would be an altercation which an individual can also choose to avoid or sever attachment.Sure there is always reason some are out of human control but a lot in human control. If denied, then what’s ego? What’s ignorance? What’s wisdom? Why is there a differentiation of levels between these facets of which are easily observable in society and immediate environments even?

Except, what you enjoy does matter, Silhouette, otherwise you would have been born without emotion and feeling, that is what makes you connected to life, complexity of feeling. There are reasons too for what you dislike and what you do not. But they don’t have to be wishes if you can taste and feel it. It is an aspect to perception of which you should also account for in determining your conclusions, what you feel can be intuition. You don’t have to form a bias or stay at a bias. Do you look inside yourself interdependently of these things as well? A lot of values can be reset by choices.

You said it yourself, electromagnetic frequencies are what project us into being by altercations of atomic level, which is an unconscious/subconscious aspect of reality, an infinitely old aspect. So if that is what projects life and it is infinitely old, then why so much attention at understanding the world and not so much attention at understanding you when you are the most complex thing immediately available? Are you being told what you are instead of experiencing what you are? This could be an issue as well. Best thing you could ever do.

“I don’t avoid others because I don’t like them or that I do not want to be around others, it is just that we are byproducts of environment and attachment, I avoid people so I may become me.

My mind too is a chemical or transmutable force of which the reaction from altercations with others, may not always be desired or beneficial”

Saying determinism will cause something to happen if it is supposed to happen is like saying god put that tree there because he wanted it to exist, then a human rips it out because he as an unique individual, did not want it there, which happens... everyday. Different semantics and I truly hope you understand that. We have effect over cause and effect, which we use.. every day. This is the point of being an individual unique identity, that is the freedom.. the uniqueness of self and how self interacts with world, it is only through acceptance of this self that things really can fall into place and power executed from mind manifesting into reality to create success.

I hope you enjoy the image I have attached, different levels of frequency of which manifest based off of unique value attribution and individual choice.

Frequencies of mind. I appreciate it for what it is and myself for what I am, a purple mind, ineffable.

I've read it, and to the extent that I don't hold back I am nasty, yes. I am only nasty, however, to people who will not respond to kindness. So if I am nasty to you, you know why. If you don't want nasty, respond to any patience I show.

You think you are terse and you are the opposite. You think you are clear and you are the opposite. If you understanding something, you can successfully condense it. 30 pages? These aren't the kinds of proofs that mathematicians come up with I will bet - the ones that take pages despite being reduced to the most concise symbolic form possible, with only the absolutely necessary included. You just mean the usual that you produce, which is consistently a long way from its simplest form, if it has a form at all.

I ask work from you because you need to do some - proofs don't come for free - and you object to me asking you to do work necessary to legimitately prove something.

The rest of what you said I've already covered.

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

That debate about the tautology of consent was resolved when I used the truth tables to prove that when a statement acts upon itself it changes both context and meaning, which makes it non tautological.

You bury your head in scholastics so far, like a robot, that you are shocked by any form of contradiction of them.

There's very few intellectual things that surprise me anymore, but unintellectual pleading against the intellectual never ceases to surprise me.

Was your tautology really resolved, or are you just claiming so like usual? A difference in context and meaning by itself sounds like a valid reason to deny tautology, but I will have to see it and how you're applying this to believe it. A link to a terse and clear proof or a terse and clear re-iteration would be appreciated. What I end up getting, however, may not be.

Ecmandu wrote:You're stating that identity doesn't exist, and that this is the ultimate truth, yet, you respond to my posts.

You are not acting as you state.

It however, is self evident not only that you exist, but you act as you exist.

My Tu Quoque is that you are full of it, and instead of being a logical fallacy, it's actually a proof that you are wrong.

If you read my above definition of fallacy, then you'd understand that this is not a logical fallacy in this case, and perhaps, if you read my definition, not a logical fallacy at all.

There is existence, of which, that which you identify as "me" is included. I understand what is meant when anyone refers to "me" (utility), but "I" am one with everything in continuity (truth). You're conflating the two even though I have explained the difference many times.

"Your" tu quoque? So when you use it it's a logical proof, not just a logical fallacy?? Are you kidding me? Tu quoque is tu quoque - whoever uses it it works just the same. If this is how you're going to define fallacy, then I need say no more, you ridicule yourself. Are you implying that if something is promoted to logical proof it no longer retains the aspects that made it a logical fallacy?

Look, the best version of what you're trying to explain here is that both "to be" and "to not be" is a logical contradiction, which would be valid (though not sound as "to be" is empirically problematic), but to only say "to not be" whilst "acting like being" is hypocrisy and therefore not true - this is a logical fallacy. It depends on which your argument is. The argument is one or the other, maybe both but not as the same argument. The first is valid but not sound, the second is sound but not valid. So they're very different, and truth requires being both valid and sound - meaning neither are true.

As-if humans or animals are not governed by the same "Fundamental Forces" you promote, and therefore, must not be governed by Master and Slave dynamics...?

A paradox for Silhouette, you cannot have it both ways. If existence is "governed" by natural law, then why wouldn't that same natural law govern the hierarchies of mammals (which it does)?

Some humans are free (not Silhouette, obviously). Others are not.

The next point is how to identify, how to locate, how to know, how to "determine", which are free and which are slaves? How could anybody tell the difference? Can a slave, know that she is a slave, when she is already convinced she is free? People believe in lies. So can a free man believe himself a slave, or wouldn't that be false? Isn't it the case that a free man could not believe he is a slave, otherwise he would not be free?

These questions are beyond Silhouette though... he failed to progress that far in the previous thread.

Your reliance upon utility is a contradiction to how a person is required to act if they truly believed what you assert to believe is the only truth.

So, I can easily assert that you don't believe your own argument whether it's true or not.

That's just a bare minimum of what I'm required to do to end this debate, that as a proof, you don't believe your own argument.

Even though I did prove it false, I don't even have to go that far with you.

You're responding to my posts, which means that deep in your head, utility is superior to non identity for you.

So the question for you is;

Now that we've proven identity (utility) means more to you than non identity, what are you going to do with that corner I put you in earlier. Remember?? The remainder of the limits that can't be chaos??

He is a wannabe slave-master. He doesn't believe the shit he's posting. He doesn't trust in his own words and position. Instead he pushes his agenda as a means to persuade others into slavery, or those who are slaves, to prevent them from ever considering Freedom. He hates the idea of Freedom. He is against it, with all his ("intellectual") might, because it would cut into his underlying agenda.

He hates the possibility that other people could be 'freer' than he-himself is.

And/Or

He hates the possibility that slaves might become enticed by dialogue of Freedom, and then go onto Free-themselves. As a wannabe slave-master, this is too much for him to tolerate.